- (1.) THE Court : The allegation in this WP under art.226 of the Constitution of India is that for undisclosed reasons the respondents have withheld payment of terminal benefits.
(2.) MR Deb Roy appearing for the employer has submitted that certain benefits could not be paid for acute financial crisis; and that for gratuity a remedy under s.8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was available. He has relied on an unreported Division Bench decision dated March 27, 2012 in an MAT No.112 of 2012 (The Managing Director, CTC Ltd. and Ors. v. Munshi Abdul Rouf and Ors.).
(3.) IN my opinion, financial crisis, if any, of the employer is no ground to say that it is entitled to withhold payment of terminal benefits of its employees. In this case it incurred the obligation to pay the benefits in question on October 26, 2012. By withholding the payment it caused loss and harassment. This is a litigation it has generated without any valid reason. The plea that for gratuity a remedy under s.8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was available is without any merit. Availability of a statutory remedy such as the one under s.8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not a bar to seek the art.226 remedy, if the entitlement to gratuity and liability to pay gratuity both are undisputed. And that is the case here. In my opinion, the employer should be ordered to pay all the payable terminal benefits. The relied on Division Bench decision does not entitle it to withhold payment of the benefits or pay them in the manner it wishes. It is liable to pay interest. I think interest, if ordered at the rate of 7% p.a., will be fair and reasonable.;